Delhi Court November 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bwl Ltd. Vs. Uoi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 26, 2012 + FAO(OS) 398/2012 BWL LTD. Appellant Represented by: Mr.D.K.Malhotra and Mr.Rajesh Kr. Malhotra, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sukumar Pattjoshi, Advocate. AND FAO(OS) 399/2012 BWL LTD. Appellant Represented by: Mr.D.K.Malhotra and Mr.Rajesh Kr. Malhotra, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sukumar Pattjoshi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) FAO(OS)s No.398/2012 and 399/2012 1. With respect to the pleadings in the OMPs and the reply filed, the position which emerges is that the learned Arbitrator appointed by the Competent Authority of BSNL concluded arguments in the two Claim Petitions filed by the appellant on October 06, 2004 and reserved the matter to pronounce the award.2. The award was not pronounced by the learned Arbitrator Shri A.K.Jain, and on Sept...
Ajit Singh Vs. Rita Devi and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:26. 11.2012 + FAO 363/2011 AJIT SINGH Through : ..... Appellant Ms. Arati Mahajan Shedha and Mr. Anand Kumar, Advs. Through : ..... Respondents Mr. Vinod Kumar Jha, Adv. for R1 to 4. versus RITA DEVI & ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL VEENA BIRBAL, J.(ORAL) * FAO No. 363/2011 1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) wherein challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 08.03.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Ashok Vihar, Delhi thereby granting compensation of ` 2,03,850/- along with ` 2,500/towards funeral charges to the respondents.2. Briefly, the background of the case is as under:Respondents no. 1 to 4 i.e. wife and children of deceased Om Prakash had filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Om Prakash. Respondent no. 1 is the wife of deceased and respondents no. 2 to 4 are his minor child...
New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs. Praveen Kumari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h November, 2012 + MAC.APP. 247/2010 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ....... Appellant Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. versus PRAVEEN KUMARI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv. for R-5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The present Appeal is dismissed in terms of the judgment passed today in MAC.APP.246/2010 titled NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. ROSHINI DEVI & ORS.2. For detailed order, please see the above mentioned judgment. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 26 2012 vk...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Roshini Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h November, 2012 + MAC.APP. 246/2010 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ....... Appellant Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. versus ROSHINI DEVI & ORS. Through: + ..... Respondents Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv. for R-7. MAC.APP. 247/2010 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ....... Appellant Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. versus + PRAVEEN KUMARI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv. for R-5. MAC.APP. 248/2010 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ....... Appellant Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. versus KAMLESH RANI & ORS. Through: + ..... Respondents Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv. for R-7. MAC.APP. 249/2010 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ....... Appellant Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. versus ROSHINI DEVI & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv. for R-7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUS...
Yuvraj Singh Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
$~ 3, 8, 11-15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: November 22, 2012 Judgment Pronounced on: November 26, 2012 + W.P.(C) 6100/2012 & CM No.16465/2012 MS. NISHA Represented by: Advocates. ..... Petitioner Mr.S.S.Pandey, and Mr.H.S.Tewari, versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Anil Gautam, Mr.Aditya Malhotra and Mr.MP Singh, Advocates for UOI. Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for AICTE. AND W.P.(C) 6185/2012 & CM No.16618/2012 MS. SONAM DUBEY Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.K.Ramesh, Advocate with Ms. R.Archana, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Anil Gautam, Mr.Aditya Malhotra and Mr.MP Singh, Advocates for UOI. AND W.P.(C) 6186/2012 & CM No.16620/2012 MS. VANDANA Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.K.Ramesh, Advocate with Ms.R.Archana, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Aditya Malhotra and M...
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Omwati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h November, 2012 + MAC.APP. 298/2011 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD........ Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. versus SMT. OMWATI & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr.Jitender Kumar, Adv. for R-1 to R-5. Mr. Ratnesh Rajmurti, Adv. for R-6 & R-7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `20,35,400/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of Respondents No.1 to 5 for the death of Bhagwan Singh, who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 12.02.2010.2. The Appellant Insurance Company does not challenge the finding on negligence. Thus, the same has attained finality.3. From the Salary certificate Ex.PW-2/1 it was proved that the deceased was working as a Head Messenger with State Bank of India. At the time of the death he was getting a salary of `22,931.79P. The Claims Tribunal deducted ...
New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs. Roshini Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h November, 2012 + MAC.APP. 249/2010 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ....... Appellant Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. versus ROSHINI DEVI & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Adv. for R-7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The present Appeal is dismissed in terms of the judgment passed today in MAC.APP.246/2010 titled NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. ROSHINI DEVI & ORS.2. For detailed order, please see the above mentioned judgment. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 26 2012 vk...
Dinesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
$~ 3, 8, 11-15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: November 22, 2012 Judgment Pronounced on: November 26, 2012 + W.P.(C) 6100/2012 & CM No.16465/2012 MS. NISHA Represented by: Advocates. ..... Petitioner Mr.S.S.Pandey, and Mr.H.S.Tewari, versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Anil Gautam, Mr.Aditya Malhotra and Mr.MP Singh, Advocates for UOI. Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for AICTE. AND W.P.(C) 6185/2012 & CM No.16618/2012 MS. SONAM DUBEY Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.K.Ramesh, Advocate with Ms. R.Archana, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Anil Gautam, Mr.Aditya Malhotra and Mr.MP Singh, Advocates for UOI. AND W.P.(C) 6186/2012 & CM No.16620/2012 MS. VANDANA Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.K.Ramesh, Advocate with Ms.R.Archana, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chibber, Mr.Aditya Malhotra and M...
icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Smt. Maya Devi and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:26. h November, 2012 + MAC.APP. 845/2011 ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ........ Appellant Through: Mr. Rajat Brar, Adv. versus SMT. MAYA DEVI & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Harvinder Singh, Adv. with Mr. Aman Garg, Adv. for R-1 to R-7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. The Appeal is for reduction of compensation of `11,04,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of Respondents No.1 to 7 for the death of Mool Chand, who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 29.01.2009.2. The Appellant Insurance Company does not challenge the finding on negligence; thus, the same has attained finality.3. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal it was claimed that the deceased Mool Chand was working as a hawker and was earning `8,000/per month. It was also claimed that the deceased had studied upto 5 th standard. No cogent evidence...
Jagjit Singh and anr Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 22, 2012 Pronounced on: November 26, 2012 + W.P.(C) 1531/2012 JAGJIT SINGH AND ANR. Through: ..... Petitioners Mr.Sanjeev Sachdeva, Senior Advocate with Mr.Preet Pal Singh, Ms.Priyam Mehta, Mr.Abhimanyu Chopra, Advocates versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondent Through: Ms.Manika Tripathy Pandey and Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT 1 Vide Communication of 5th January, 2012 (Annexure P-24) respondent has deferred the conversion of Plot No.26, Pocket 5A, Sector 25, Rohini, Delhi (henceforth referred to as subject premises) from leasehold to freehold while requiring petitioner to first obtain permission of sale from competent court in respect of sale of subject premises by or on behalf of mentally ill person.2. Challenge to aforesaid impugned Communication (Annexure P-24) is on the basis of medical certificate of 13 th August, 1999 (Annexure P-1) declaring that one of the sell...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »